EnigmaticProblem wrote:This is something I've never understood. . . All this talk about the Lakers' lack of depth.

Who does Oklahoma City have coming off that bench? Let''s assume James Harden is a starter in the scenario. That leaves Nick Collison, Daequan Cook, Eric Maynor, Daniel Orton, and Thabo Sefolosha. How is that better than what the Lakers have? I'd take Jordan Hill over Nick Collison; I'd take Jodie Meeks over Daequan Cook; I'd also take Antawn Jamison over Daniel Orton (or Perry Jones III). That leaves Eric Maynor, who's coming off an ACL injury, and Thabo Sefolosha.

Am I missing something, here?

EDIT: However, Miami is much deeper than us, provided their bench is healthy. You have Battier, Miller, Allen, along with Haslem. This isn't a bad thing, though. All of those players are wing players, and anyone keeping Wade and LeBron off the floor can't be a bad thing. They have an oversaturation in perimeter players, and no front court depth-- It'll be interesting seeing how all of those minutes are distributed.

You're missing something for sure. James Harden is NOT a starter. Why would you assume it that he is. It's like when we placed Odom on our bench, we had a decent bench. Thabo Selfolosha is wonderful off the bench. All-NBA Defensive Second Team in 2010. That alone makes him more valuable than everybody on our bench.

This is absolutely a nonsensical reply. It needs to be stated that Lamar Odom's situation has little similarity to James Harden's. Lamar Odom came off the bench 'cause having him in the starting line up would create a major redundancy. There would have been 4 post players in the starting line up, which wouldn't work with the triangle. The issue here is of redundancy/luxury versus necessity.

Now, let's address the rest of your drivel. Sure, technically James Harden doesn't start games. However, his role is not that of a bench player's. Last year, Sefolosha averaged just a touch over 20 minutes per game, whereas Harden averaged just a touch under 32. Moreover, Sefolosha's minutes have gone down (considerably) every year he's been in Oklahoma City. The most cardinal tangent here is the fact that their roles do not overlap, in any way whatsoever. Harden is, in essence, a starter. Why is Harden relegated to the bench? I'd say it's 'cause the Thunder's bench would be absolutely atrocious-- Like, epically atrocious-- Without him providing a slight spark. So, where Lamar Odom was a luxury, James Harden is a necessity.

Nonetheless, you didn't address the rest of my post. Outside of Harden, do you not think OKC's bench is worse than the Lakers'? Do you not think Jordan Hill is considerably better than Nick Collison? Don't answer that unless you know their stats. You can pretty much do this player versus player comparison for both benches, and the Lakers would come out on top. The Lakers, overall, have a much better roster than the Thunder. They have five players capable of scoring 20+ points, any given night (Steve, Kobe, Pau, Dwight, Antawn). In comparison, the Thunder have three. lol..

EnigmaticProblem wrote:This is something I've never understood. . . All this talk about the Lakers' lack of depth.

Who does Oklahoma City have coming off that bench? Let''s assume James Harden is a starter in the scenario. That leaves Nick Collison, Daequan Cook, Eric Maynor, Daniel Orton, and Thabo Sefolosha. How is that better than what the Lakers have? I'd take Jordan Hill over Nick Collison; I'd take Jodie Meeks over Daequan Cook; I'd also take Antawn Jamison over Daniel Orton (or Perry Jones III). That leaves Eric Maynor, who's coming off an ACL injury, and Thabo Sefolosha.

Am I missing something, here?

EDIT: However, Miami is much deeper than us, provided their bench is healthy. You have Battier, Miller, Allen, along with Haslem. This isn't a bad thing, though. All of those players are wing players, and anyone keeping Wade and LeBron off the floor can't be a bad thing. They have an oversaturation in perimeter players, and no front court depth-- It'll be interesting seeing how all of those minutes are distributed.

You're missing something for sure. James Harden is NOT a starter. Why would you assume it that he is. It's like when we placed Odom on our bench, we had a decent bench. Thabo Selfolosha is wonderful off the bench. All-NBA Defensive Second Team in 2010. That alone makes him more valuable than everybody on our bench.

This is absolutely a nonsensical reply. It needs to be stated that Lamar Odom's situation has little similarity to James Harden's. Lamar Odom came off the bench 'cause having him in the starting line up would create a major redundancy. There would have been 4 post players in the starting line up, which wouldn't work with the triangle. The issue here is of redundancy/luxury versus necessity.

Now, let's address the rest of your drivel. Sure, technically James Harden doesn't start games. However, his role is not that of a bench player's. Last year, Sefolosha averaged just a touch over 20 minutes per game, whereas Harden averaged just a touch under 32. Moreover, Sefolosha's minutes have gone down (considerably) every year he's been in Oklahoma City. The most cardinal tangent here is the fact that their roles do not overlap, in any way whatsoever. Harden is, in essence, a starter. Why is Harden relegated to the bench? I'd say it's 'cause the Thunder's bench would be absolutely atrocious-- Like, epically atrocious-- Without him providing a slight spark. So, where Lamar Odom was a luxury, James Harden is a necessity.

Nonetheless, you didn't address the rest of my post. Outside of Harden, do you not think OKC's bench is worse than the Lakers'? Do you not think Jordan Hill is considerably better than Nick Collison? Don't answer that unless you know their stats. You can pretty much do this player versus player comparison for both benches, and the Lakers would come out on top. The Lakers, overall, have a much better roster than the Thunder. They have five players capable of scoring 20+ points, any given night (Steve, Kobe, Pau, Dwight, Antawn). In comparison, the Thunder have three. lol..

What the ****? And how is that any different from the LO situation at all? LO always closed games out for us, he wasn't just a "luxury", he was a necessity for us. Bynum NEVER closed out games for us from 08-11. Everything you just said about Harden is spot on about LO.

The reason Lamar closed out games was 'cause that particular line up made more sense 'to' close out games. It gave us an advantage offensively (floor spacing, another ball handler, et cetera), while also giving us an advantage defensively (switching on to smaller players, hedge and return, help defence). Despite all of that, Odom was a luxury. We could have easily closed out games with Bynum, too (as we did all of 2011-2012). How many teams can take out their all-star big men, and not losing anything in terms of production? That's a luxury.

If Harden were starting, there would be a massive drop in production from the bench, making his inclusion on the bench a necessity. Harden isn't starting 'cause their bench would suck without him-- Odom didn't start 'cause we had equally competent players in our front court.

Horry is bitter that the Lakers have a newly opened championship window and if they win back to back Kobe will have as much rings as him.

Sure our bench isn't the best in the league because we don't have a James Harden coming off the bench but we certainly improved our bench from the past season. We didn't have a legit backup shooting guard for Kobe last season and now Jordan Hill is going to have a full season knowing what his role is. You can't forget about Antawn Jamison and the scoring punch he will be capable of providing off the bench. I remember seeing a stat that said Jamison alone averaged more points than our bench did last season. Then you can't forget about the fact that our starting lineup just got a major upgrade.

The Skyhook wrote:Horry is bitter that the Lakers have a newly opened championship window and if they win back to back Kobe will have as much rings as him.

Sure our bench isn't the best in the league because we don't have a James Harden coming off the bench but we certainly improved our bench from the past season. We didn't have a legit backup shooting guard for Kobe last season and now Jordan Hill is going to have a full season knowing what his role is. You can't forget about Antawn Jamison and the scoring punch he will be capable of providing off the bench. I remember seeing a stat that said Jamison alone averaged more points than our bench did last season. Then you can't forget about the fact that our starting lineup just got a major upgrade.

Bitter? He was the main one giving Kobe praise these past few years so why would he be bitter at Kobe getting more rings? The man just gave his opinion. It wasnt like it was filled with a bunch of hate or shade of the current team.

Stebo_SSK wrote:Bitter? He was the main one giving Kobe praise these past few years so why would he be bitter at Kobe getting more rings? The man just gave his opinion. It wasnt like it was filled with a bunch of hate or shade of the current team.

Just because he clearly likes/respects Kobe, doesn't mean he feels the same about the Lakers as a whole... Everything I've read from Horry since his time in LA ended, has had some sort of subtle jab at the Lakers.

His opinion, no doubt, but the lack of logic or historical recognition in this current opinion, makes it a pretty useless one.

I can't think of a single championship the Lakers won since Showtime, when they had the clearly superior bench.

Just give me back the board, Lance. It was a good board, and I like it.

The Skyhook wrote:Horry is bitter that the Lakers have a newly opened championship window and if they win back to back Kobe will have as much rings as him.

Sure our bench isn't the best in the league because we don't have a James Harden coming off the bench but we certainly improved our bench from the past season. We didn't have a legit backup shooting guard for Kobe last season and now Jordan Hill is going to have a full season knowing what his role is. You can't forget about Antawn Jamison and the scoring punch he will be capable of providing off the bench. I remember seeing a stat that said Jamison alone averaged more points than our bench did last season. Then you can't forget about the fact that our starting lineup just got a major upgrade.

Bitter? He was the main one giving Kobe praise these past few years so why would he be bitter at Kobe getting more rings? The man just gave his opinion. It wasnt like it was filled with a bunch of hate or shade of the current team.

Rob has pop'd off a lot in recent years about the Lakers. He blamed Phil for the Shaq/Kobe fude. Horry's been bitter since 2003 when the Lakers never made him an offer to pay him $5 million a season. On his way out the door he flat out called Kobe and Shaq two of the biggest ball hogs he's ever played with. Took a shot at Shaq by saying...."Duncan is not like that. You're not going to read anything in the paper about "My teammates need to get me the ball", like another big man we know".

Keep talking Rob, you're only going to piss Kobe off.......you know he hears about this stuff.